« Previous | Main | Next »

August 19, 2010

A QUESTION FOR PEOPLE WHO DESIGN INTERNET ADVERTISING:

When you create ads that not only block our view of whatever site we're trying to look at, but also move around so as to keep blocking our view, do you actually think we're going be receptive to whatever product or service you're trying to sell us? Do you think we go: "Wow! These people are really persevering in their efforts to prevent me from seeing what I am trying to see! I am favorably inclined to give them money!"?

Has it ever occurred to you that our reaction might be: "I would rather French-kiss a moray eel than purchase this service or product"?

Seriously, I'm asking.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

hatehatehate them!!! they need to kiss my tuchis in macy's window!

Download and install Google Chrome Internet browser. The procedure is not only painless, it's drool spastic worthy fun.

http://www.google.com/chrome

Then install Chrome's pop up blocker. Ta Da! Should the erection last longer than six weeks, consult Google's on line support about the Pop Up issue and ask for John Davidson, the tech from Calcutta.

https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/nmpeeekfhbmikbdhlpjbfmnpgcbeggic

Yeah. That's pretty annoying. The ad people must be smoking those radioactive boars.

Firefox also has a decent ad block thingie.

So the ads make you feel
Like you'd rather suck eel
That's a moray?

I use Firefox, and it blocks most of the pop-up ads. But there are some sites where ads still materialize and hover on top of the page, moving when I scroll. I HATE those ads.

LOL trustf8!

There should be an app for that.

I think we are supposed to admire the good, old American ingenuity that is displayed by the people who find ways to embed in the page's coding or javascript the means of defeating pop-up blockers. They appeal to our admiration for outlaws and our nostalgia for the Western archetypes. And, yeah, most of the designers should end up like Bonny and Clyde, filled full of holes (which appears to be an oxymoron).

No, because we have no souls.

Kidding aside, Internet ads are a social contract. I will provide this information that you want, free of charge. In exchange, you agree to acknowledge that you aware of this physical product whose existence allows me to provide you with this free content. Some are more annoying than others, but that is no different than any traditional advertising (e.g. Mean Joe Green vs. Geico's Gecko). I would tell you that the solution is the one you described (don't buy their products), but your rational decision is dwarfed by the 90% of the people whose IQ frequently appears on a football scoreboard who, 10 minutes later, only remember the company name, not how incredibly aggravating their advertising was.

In perspective, it's still less obtrusive than stopping the drama I'm watching right in the middle of the climax to display Wilford Brimley telling me he has diabetes. Can you imagine reading an article on CNN, only to have the screen go blank, followed by two and a half minutes of dancing cats selling sandwiches and airline baggage handlers coming on to you?

I, on the other hand, totally subscribe to that "perseverance" thing. That's why I always make a point of voting for any politcian whose robocalls interrupt my dinner. I also immediately convert to any religion that bangs on my door while I'm taking a nap.

AdBlock Pro and/or NoScript will kill these kinds of ads, Dave. They're availiable on both firefox and chrome.

I used to feel a little guilty about browsing with ABP turned on, since people should make a bit of money off their content, but the proliferation of obnoxious ads has cured me of that. Ads that flash, make noise, hide content, and/or put tracking cookies (or worse) on my machine have made that decision much easier.

Why would anyone want to block a Pop Tart?

("psssst -- murbleburbleblahblahblah.")

OOOOOooooohhhhhhhhh.

Nevermind.

Google Chrome has moved ahead of Firefox. Chrome is faster. Test the speed on your system. Chrome wins as far as being the fastest browser at this time. However...Internet Explorer 9 will be released later this year and will include a host of new capabilities. IE9 will utalize dual core cPU's (multithreaded to some extent) AND will use the computer's graphics processing unit to make your browsing experience more lifelike than ever before. The annoying ads will become even more realistic.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361444,00.asp

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opera-10.60-internet-explorer-9-safari-5,2680.html

Also, beware Flash Cookies.

I had no burning desire to block ads until the proliferation of the type that Dave described. I understand that advertising supports the existence of the web sites I want to visit, but I'll be DANGED if I will put up with ads that INTERFERE with using the site. Not to mention the ones that are audio/video which start up when you hit the site, even if they don't cover up the content. When these ads started becoming more and more common, I finally made the switch to FireFox with the AdBlock Plus add-in. I don't even use NoScripts. Now every site I visit is blissfully ad-free. It's such a pleasure to browse clean, streamlined sites.

I get a few once in awhile nothing to get excited about. Firefox and Safari have their own pop up blockers

Snork @ tf8 and thanks siouxie and wdog for previous adblockplus steer and current flash cookie caution, respectively.
Popup ads are a criminal annoyance!

The rollover ads that occasionally appear at the top of this blog (Madonna and your sunglasses, I'm talking about you) have sometimes been found to be annoying by a few oversensitive persons who visit this site regularly.

I'm not defending misbehaving ads on my site. If I had any say in the matter (I don't) they'd be gone.

Remember back in the day when print newspapers didn't have ads? Oops, wait a minute, that's now.

Fortunately, it's only the few oversensitive types who complain about the ads here. The rest of us are of hardier stock, and take whatever the site dishes out just because we are tough. I have at least 30 pairs of Madonna's sunglasses. I wear them all at the same time, and they do a wonderful job of blocking ads from my sight. (Airplane!)

This is one of (BUY PEPSI!) my pet peeves, also. But I do (TRY OUR NEW TAMPONS!) agree with Slightly Askew's point about putting (TEST DRIVE A NEW LEXUS TODAY!) up with advertisements in exchange for free content (THEY'RE GRRRRREAT!) on the Internet. So every time I'm annoyed (TAKE YOUR SNUGGIE ANYWHERE!) by it, I try to remind myself of this.

Madonna glasses? Luxury.

I once read an entire page of comments that were underlined and italicized, sprinkled liberally with gotcha links to BM and men in kilts (although, thankfully, not the two combined). To this day, my head still tilts slightly to the right and I cringe at the sight of tartan.

Second the recommendation for NoScript: http://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722/

Be aware that, unlike AdBlock, it blocks Javascript everywhere, so you have to then allow it on a site-by-site basis where you find you need it.

Sorry, I meant to make that a link.

Dave,
The answer is real simple. Ad agencies do that to us because they hate us.

Well, Dave, as annoying as these ads are, they do give you an idea of how much we all love your blog.
Nothing will deter us from our regularly appointed amusement here.
Neither Dolce & Gabbana nor shotgun-armed banana,
not radioactive pigs or 'one simple weight loss tricks'.

I hate those ads. You scroll down and they follow you. Then sometimes when you try to click the little 'x' in the corner to close them you accidentally end up on their site. I'm sure that Dave gets more than his fair share of these since he reads all the posts that we send in and I'm sure many of them have these ads. Now they've come up with ads that pop up at the bottom of your screen. Usually they aren't from big name companies either. They know better. Dave, you and Judi have my sympathy.

What really annoy me is the trend to link every site to Facebook and Twitter. I don't give a tinker's dam what the so-called people on Facebook and Twitter are recommending, but I have to put up with the delays that result from the site compiling useless (to me) lists of the "hot topics" as determined by the illiterati.

I'd say that it's not the "designers" that you have to blame. They are internet savvy and likely hate that stuff as much as anyone.

It's the companies who are hawking the products that you need to blame, and then the sales/marketing people who don't talk them out of it.

I mean, like, seriously! It only makes me want to pay someone to punch them in the face!

Brian:

Thank you. I've developed my share of web content, including ad rotators. I used to argue with the marketing people that they are just going to annoy people away from their product. Unfortunately, that's not the case. They had the market research. Annoying as they may be, in-your-face advertising can be more profitable than unobtrusive banners or sidebars. For every one person like Dave who boycotts a product due to their banner, there are 100 more who actually do get excited by the prospect of a 1.5% 30yr fixed rate mortgage.

The key is not to boycott the advertiser, but the medium. You click on a link to read an article, the ad pops up and starts dancing around, you click the back button and move on. Nothing in that article was life-changing anyway. Only when content providers see their hits (and thus, ad revenue) drop will they consider changing their marketing strategy.

One thing I really hate is the ads in the background.

So if the Blog did that, instead of a blue-turquoise nothing at the edges, you'd have an ad for Your Florida Panthers Hockey Season Tickets Now On Sale (not that the Panthers would do such a thing). Trying to click to make the window active would lead to a totally new website loading...and ya can't read it.

I miss the days when the ad was worked into the program.

I remember George Washington during the winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge complaining about the ads as he was trying to surf the www for "revolutionary war tips." Once he even threw his teeth at his iPad. You are not alone, Dave.

I'm completely with Dave on this one.....I will go out of my way to avoid their products/services. Of course, they are going for the lowest common denominator and we bloggals and guys are all smarter than that. Booger.

*suspects the ad was trying to sell Dave a non blue colored shirt*

Firefox, and Ad Block Plus and the "Element Hiding Helper" add=on.

No more ads. Period. I can even look at CNN.COM without seeing a single advertisement.

Thankfully, it seems to be gone, but there was a flash ad for "Bomcast" that would freeze my browser for about 5 minutes before the flash engine realized that "a script on this page is running slowly". You think?

I am reminded of a controversy with ads covering the comic pages in my local newspaper. The ones that just fold over aren't too bad, but the readers went ballistic when they were attached to the comic sheet so you had to remove it to read the comics. Many people swore they would never shop at the stores who did this.

We still have them, though.

Horace if I'm not mistaken, according to 'Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort Of History Of The United States' I believe the George Washington incident you are describing occurred on October 8th.

Back during the presidential campaign, there was this Q&A:
Ad Starved asked Dave, I just don't get enough helpful and informative e-mails, text messages, postal advertisements and telephone solicitations. There ought to be a government agency that would help companies contact me 24/7/365.
Answer: We are working on a system that will use gamma rays to project text messages directly onto your retinas, day and night, from satellites in space. Our main sponsor right now is Geico, which is concerned that some of you may be going minutes at a time without thinking about their cute little spokeslizard.

My bad, it's Time Warner Cable, and it's back.

*goes to get flamethrower*

I hate those ads! The ones on the edges of the web page, I usually tune out. To be fair, mostly I just close the dancing ads without paying much attention. But they're really annoying.

I have to wonder how Geico could possibly give anyone a good deal on their insurance considering how much money they spend on their ads. But I do kinda like the one where they show the aftermath when someone challenges a professional baseball pitcher to a snowball fight.

Kristina I like that one (Randy Johnson is the pitcher) but my favorite Geico ad is the one with the drill sergeant that is a therapist. I love it when he calls his patient a cry baby and throws the box of tissue at him. I'm tired of the gecko.

OK, I gotta throw my two cents in (shipping and handling extra).

First of all, getting the internets for free is no excuse for this intrusion. It's like saying I get to drive down the interstate for free because there are billboards along the side of the road. The free web was free long before the schills realized they can make a buck off of it.

Unsolicited phone calls, those annoying advertisement stickers they put right in the middle of the front page newspaper story, crap in my mailbox that immediately goes into the recycling bin conveniently located right beneath said mailbox without so much as a glance...save your marketing dollars. Those of us who are ADHD-free aren't falling for your pathetic ploys to separate us from our money. (Demographic males aged 18-35 with a median income of $18,000-27,450 excepted).

Pop-up ads are just another failed brainstorm in product promotional history.

When I want information on your useless, overpriced product I will seek it out. Until then...GET OFF MY LAWN!!

In summary...what Dave said.

/rant

I can avoid most of the pop-ups; it's the pop-unders that annoy me. I don't need a dozen hidden Netflix windows slowing down my browser. I will NOT deal with Netflix, EVER.

Internet ads and TV bugs are both bad.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

-
 
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise